Pot Wars about more than getting HIGH

As a follow up to the announcment that the State Conference of the NAACP is support Prop 19, the Drug Policy Alliance issued a report which highlights a huge problem: while marijuana use is roughly equal across groups and locations, the vast majority of arrests are of young, African American males.

The Sacramento Bee cited the report, which stated

"in Sacramento and San Francisco Counties, black residents were arrested for marijuana possession four times as often as white residents. In Los Angeles County, the disparity was more than three to one, according to the analysis of California arrest data from 2004 through 2008."

While not at all condoning the illegal use of marijuana, people should be concerned about how this is used to disproportionately target young people of color. Should this be a wake up call to young black men that smoking pot can be dangerous to their futures as well as their health? Of course. But it should also be a wake up call to the general public that there is something smelling going on - and its not just the bud burning.

But don't take my word for it, please check out Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow, which highlights the impact of felony disenfranchisement that is epidemic in our country, and how its swallowing up black men at a rate far worse than at any time in American history.

NAACP supports legalization of marijuana... They're fighting for your right to get high!

The California Conference of the NAACP has offered it’s unconditional support for an initiative that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the Golden State.

The Sacramento Bee reports:

In a news conference today, the California State Conference of the NAACP is due to throw its support behind the initiative to legalize marijuana for adults over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit cities to tax and regulate pot sales.

In a statement, Alice Huffman, the state NAACP president, said the organization is backing the initiative, Proposition 19, to counter marijuana arrest rates that she contends unfairly target African Americans.

"There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color," she said. "The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular."

The NAACP’s enthusiasm on this issue is not widely shared amongst African American leaders.

…(Ron) Allen, president of the International Faith-Based Coalition, a Sacramento group representing 3,600 congregations, said he is stunned the state NAACP would favor legalized marijuana.

"Most African American pastors are disappointed, absolutely disappointed with the decision," said Allen, bishop of the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church in Oak Park. "If anyone should know the effects of illicit drugs in the black community, it should be one of our most respected civil rights organizations."

The primary issue here is the fact that a greater percentage of blacks seem to be prosecuted for crimes involving marijuana than other ethnic groups.

"There is a strong racial component that must be considered when we investigate how marijuana laws are applied to people of color," she said. "The burden has fallen disproportionately on people of color and young black men in particular."

The problem is not that these young men are arrested for these crimes. It’s that they are involved in these crimes at all. If they did not have possession of illegal substances, then they would not be arrested for having them. And making that substance legal does not fix the underlying problem of drug usage and criminal behavior in the black community. If you want to reduce the number of young black men being arrested for possession, then get them to stop using and selling!

It’s hard to believe that this is the same organization that fought against the proliferation of liquor stores in the black community. I cannot believe they honestly support the idea of unleashing the plague of legalized drugs on those very same neighborhoods.

Vote to Boycott Arizona Prompts Recall of Sacramento City Council Members

Voters have had enough of the Sacramento City Council's refusal to do something about it.

After the Mayor and six council members voted to institute a boycott of the state of Arizona (in protest of their new immigration enforcement law) a group of Sacramento area residents opted to organize a recall of those who voted in favor of the boycott.

Congressional District 5 candidate, Paul Smith; Conservative Radio Talk Show Host, Eric Hogue; and Tea Party Express Organizer Mark Williams have put together RecallSacramento.com to gather the names and addresses of city residents who would be willing to sign a recall petition. The plan is to move on each member of the council, once they have commitment from enough voters in each district.

Organizers admit that it is unlikely that they will gain enough support to recall all the members of the council. But they feel that if they are able to remove even one, their point would be made. And the truth is, there are plenty of other reasons to want a change in city leadership.

Sacramento is facing a budget deficit of at least $43 million. Crime, including violent crime is on the rise. And despite gathering more than enough signatures to put a referendum for a Strong Mayor on the ballot, the city council refused to allow the people to vote on the idea. In fact, there is such dissatisfaction with the council that in the most recent election, two incumbents (Robbie Waters and Ray Tretheway) failed to win reelection.

If there was ever a time to take back our city government from these "Not so ready for prime time players" now is that time. The only question is going to be whether or not folks are actually going to fully invest in this effort. Because without a commitment of time, talent and treasury this recall will go nowhere.

Mexico joins legal challenge to Arizona's illegal immigration law

In what can only be described as an act of shear audacity and hypocrisy, Mexico (that's right the nation of Mexico) has filed a brief in the court case challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law addressing illegal immigration.

According to CNN:

Mexico on Tuesday filed a brief in federal court in Arizona supporting a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a tough new immigration law, Mexico's foreign ministry said.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn SB 1070, a recently passed law due to go into effect late next month, which stipulates that police can ask the residency status of people being investigated for a crime.

"The government of Mexico has requested the court that SB 1070 be declared unconstitutional and that it does not enter into force," the foreign ministry said in a written statement.

The Mexican government gave its support to the lawsuit filed by a group of civil rights organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In its brief, Mexico "underscored that it is fundamental and imperative that the human and civil rights of its citizens are duly respected while present in Arizona or in any other state of the United States," the foreign ministry said.

In filing the brief, Mexico said it was upholding its duty to protect its nationals in the United States and ensure that they are not discriminated against based on their ethnicity.

The case is Friendly House, et al v. Michael B. Whiting, et al.

Considering how Mexico treats immigrants to their county (illegal or legal), it is unfathomable that they would have the nerve to challenge anyone else. To place their hypocrisy into proper perspective here are excerpts from an article that ran in the Washington Times on 4/6/06 entitled “The Mexican Solution,” by Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

Under . . . [the Mexican] constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called "racist" and "xenophobic."

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

• Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.

• Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."

• Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

• Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers, as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

• In accordance with Article 130, immigrants -- even legal ones -- may not become members of the clergy, either.

• Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."

• Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

• What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right.

• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners -- not just illegal immigrants -- may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

And in April 2010, Michelle Malkin wrote a piece "How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens" where she points out the following:

--Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

--Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

So, the next time the Mexican government decides to chime in when it comes to how we conduct ourselves here in the US, I would encourage them to first clean up their own mess

Inmates Claim $9 Million in Home Buyer Tax Credit

President Obama wasn’t kidding when he promised to spread the wealth. And apparently, some of it has been spread to folks serving life sentences.

In a recently released government report, it appears that 1300 prison inmates recieved mor that $9 million from the Federal Home Buyer’s Tax Credit…. 241 of them are serving life in prison!

According to CNBC:

In all, more than 14,100 taxpayers wrongly received at least $26.7 million in tax credits that were meant to boost the nation's slumping housing markets, said the report by J. Russell George, the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.

Some taxpayers received the credit for homes purchased before the tax break was started. In other cases, multiple taxpayers improperly used the same home to claim multiple credits. Investigators found one home that was used by 67 taxpayers to claim credits.

I guess the good news is that they found out about the discrepancies. But I wish them luck trying to get that money back.

Another good idea mucked up by government bureaucrats.

Black Republican Nominated to Congress in South Carolina. Democrats lament, "He's no Alvin Greene!"

In 1854, the GOP is founded in opposition to slavery. In 1964, we elected segregationist Strom Thurmond. Now in 2010, we nominate an African-American to fill Thurmond's old seat. The circle is complete!

Unlike their Democratic counterparts, South Carilina Republicans have nominated an African-American man who is undoubtably qualified and ready serve his constitutents in Washington DC.

The Associated Press reports:

Voters in South Carolina nominated a black Republican lawmaker for an open congressional seat Tuesday, rejecting a renowned political name and potentially changing the face of the national party.

State Rep. Tim Scott defeated Paul Thurmond, an attorney who is son of the onetime segregationist U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who won the runoff with 69 percent of the vote, is poised to become the nation's first black GOP congressman since 2003.

Scott, 44, owns an insurance business and became the first black Republican in the South Carolina Legislature in more than a century when elected in 2008.

He's now the favorite in the coastal First District, which has elected a Republican congressman for three decades. He would become the first black Republican congressman since Oklahoma's J.C. Watts retired in 2003.

I think the fact that Mr. Scott defeated the son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond is a wonderful bit of irony.

It will be interesting to see how the national establishment reacts to him. Will he be a game changer the way that JC Watts was during his tenure; helping the party develop policy to address issues beyond the usual GOP focus? Or will he be an establishment guy trying to sell the party as it's ambassador to the black community?

I don't know him. So, I cannot say which he will be. But I everything I have heard about him is that he is a conservative, independent thinker. That should bode well for the type of leader he will be in Congress.

The one thing I do know is that he is no Alvin Greene!

Congratulations Mr. Scott!

House Dems Declare, “Budget? We don’t need no stinking budget!”

In 2006 Rep. John Spratt(D) declared of Republicans, “If you can’t budget, you can’t govern.” Well now that he is in charge of the budget, he has changed his tune!

House Democrats have chosen not to even pass a budget this year. Instead, they will pass a “Budget Alternative” which will continue spending at last year’s level. So what’s the big deal?

Well this alternative budget leaves out some very important facts; like a projected annual budget deficit averaging over $1 Trillion a year for the next 10 years!  As reported by The Hill:

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said the alternative would be the “functional equivalent” of a full-fledged budget. But because it won't be a traditional budget resolution, it will be silent on future deficits, which are expected to average nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.

Democrats have expressed concern about voting for a document showing lots of red ink in an election year.

Even those who are fond of comparing the spending during the Bush years to that of our current President are silent. The truth is that the highest deficit under President Bush was $450 billion. Back in 2009 The Heritage Foundation Reported”

It is true that, between 2002 and 2009, the budgets largely shaped by President George Bush will have run cumulative budget deficits of $3.35 trillion. This calculation credits the entire 2009 budget deficit and TARP costs to Bush, even though Obama will have signed most of the discretionary spending bills and overseen much of the TARP spending.

But Obama does not have much high ground. The “stimulus” bill alone will create more debt (approximately $1 trillion including interest costs), than Bush’s first three years of budget deficits combined ($948 billion).

So, if the numbers are already out there, what are Democrats trying to hide? One has to wonder if the projected deficits are even greater that we know. And if President Obama signs this "Budget Alternative", what does that say about his commitment to "Transparency"?

In California, Top of the GOP Ticket Target Black and Latino Voters Early

Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina and leading Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman have begun there general election runs early. And they have done so by targeting those who Democrats seem to take most for granted- people of color.

The LA Times reported that over the weekend Carly was the only candidate of at any level to attend a Juneteenth celebration in Los Angeles.

Though many people had to ask her staff who Fiorina was, they crowded around to shake her hand, request her autograph and thank her for visiting South Los Angeles.

"I think it's very brave of her to come out, because she certainly knows the kind of crowd she's facing," said Cathy Youngblood, 58, a cultural anthropologist from Watts. "She's shown by being here, she's willing to listen. … Do you see any other politicians here?"

And last week Meg Whitman began running Spanish language ads during the World Cup; making her the first Republican I can remember to ever do so, as well as the only candidate doing it at this time.

This just goes to show that these are not your typical Republican candidates. And this is not your typical lineup of GOP slate of candidates. Heavy on diversity and real world business experience, they present a stark contrast to the group of liberal political insiders offered up by the Democrats.

And unlike Republicans of the past (and their Democratic opponents) this new group of conservative leaders are not taking ethnic voters for granted. A strategy that I believe will pay off in the long run.

There may be issues that separate Republicans from Black and Latino voters. However, there are just as many issues upon which we have significant agreement. The need for real reform of our public schools, abortion, protecting the definition of marriage and the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes aggressive enforcement of existing immigration laws; are just a few areas where there is support for conservative ideas amongst black and brown voters. And just like other voters, these groups are not happy with status quo incumbent politics.

Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are engaging these voters; and engaging them early. They are hitting Democrats in their own backyard; making them step up and start offering a real alternative to these fresh new faces.

I hope that Meg and Carly keep up the pressure on their Democratic opponents. It will serve to not only help the GOP; but to give all voters a real choice come November.

President's first Oval Office address falls flat

Yesterday, President Obama delivered his first ever national address from the Oval Office. This is move usually reserved for important announcements, not whimsical political speeches. Guess which one he delivered last night?

As he discussed the current environmental crisis facing the Gulf Coast, it was evident that he had very little of substance to say. He announced a 6 month moratorium on offshore drilling, which was old news. He assured viewers that British Petroleum would be held responsible for the spill. Then in the spirit of “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste…” he declared a need for new environmental regulations.

President Obama did not explain why it has taken his administration almost two months to kick into gear on this issue as the economy and environment of the Gulf Coast is ruined. He offered no substantive plan as to how the oil spill will be cleaned up and the habitat restored.

But he did do as he usually does… talks about the future in an effort to inspire in order to distract from his lack of meaningful action on the issues facing the nation right now.

California Democrats Support Tax Cuts for Business! Well...Sort of…

That’s right! Democrats are once again proposing significant tax incentives to encourage employers to do business right here in California… that is if they happen to be a green technology company. All other employers… you can go take a hike!... a tax hike that is!

Right on the heals of proposing over $12 billion in new taxes on Californians, Assembly Democrats (specifically Assemblymember Joan Buchanan) are proposing an increase in the research and development tax credit for companies that specialize in the development of alternative energy and green technologies. Buchanan states,
 

“Assembly Bill 1565 creates targeted Research and Development Tax Credit Areas with attractive R&D credits to motivate green technology businesses to stay in and move to California.”

In theory, this sounds like something Republicans should support – making it more cost-effective for businesses to come to and stay in California, thus providing much needed jobs. In fact, legislative Republicans have gotten behind such targeted efforts in the past. In 2009, they supported Assembly Speaker Karen Bass’ bill that provided tax credits for movie and television productions to studios that film here in the golden state. And a few months ago, they supported a manufacturer’s tax credit for green tech companies. So, why shouldn’t they get behind this most recent effort to provide much needed tax relief to at least some California companies? One word – Hypocrisy!

The California Legislature should not be in the business of picking winners and losers during these tough economic times. There is a basic hypocrisy in the liberal mindset that says, California is such and attractive place to do business that employers will stay here no matter how much we increase taxes and regulation; then at the same time arguing that we need to provide tax incentives to certain industries (the ones they happen to like) in order to bring and keep them in California. But wait…I thought those incentives didn’t make a difference?

Assemblyman Tom Amiano once lamented in a committee hearing that he was tired of people saying that our anti-business climate was chasing business out of the state. He stated that he just didn’t see the dire emergency. Apparently he forgot that in just a few short years, California went from the world’s fifth largest economy to the world’s eighth largest economy. And that was before the legislature passed the largest tax increase in state history. It is only a matter of time before having the highest sales tax, highest gas tax and second highest corporate tax rate drive us even further down the economic rankings.

It is important to note that is fact is not lost on Democrats. In fact Buchanan herself discusses the vital role that tax incentives can play in keeping businesses in California as she declares,

“This incentive will encourage business to remain in California and motivate new businesses to locate here, retaining and creating permanent jobs and helping to spur California’s economy.”

So what’s with the Jekyll and Hyde impression that Democrats seem to be doing on taxes? They know that tax cuts attract businesses and create jobs. But at the same time they are offering tax cuts to only a few select businesses, they are increasing taxes on the rest of California. What effect do they honestly believe that these tax increases will actually have?

Or maybe a better question is, do they even care?

South Carolina Democrats Nominate a Brain Surgeon for Senate... NOT!!!

I cannot decide if this story is funny or just plain sad.

In South Carolina, Democrats nominated Alvin Greene to be their candidate for US Senate against Sen. Jim DeMint. They funny part is that now their party leadership is crying foul and accusing Mr. Greene of being a plant by the Republican Party.

They claim that someone else paid his filing fees and put him up to run because his being black would garner a good chunk of the democratic vote, since much of the electorate in South Carolina also happens to be black. Little did they suspect how right they would be.

After raising no money and doing no campaigning, Alvin Greene garnered almost 60% of the Democratic vote in their primary, making him their nominee. And as you can tell from the above video, he is eminently qualified.

Credentials:

• Unemployed
• Facing felony pornography charges
• Involuntarily discharged from the military
•  Doesn't own a computer or cell phone 
• His name was first on the ballot

 Heck, he should run for President!